User:Uleli/archive

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

TUSC token 19bac762f278c317c267ff064ec94481[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

TUSC token 166f044d7dd0a0ccc5abc227901d746e[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

TUSC token 9e2c8d9c3198d158a7bb84e115aac857[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:Praecereus saxicola (Cereus rhodoleucanthus) Bluehende Kakteen Page 102.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 10:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

images uploaded from Picasa[edit]

File:Cereus aethiopsDSCN0840.jpg[edit]

File deletion warning File:Cereus aethiopsDSCN0840.jpg has been marked as violating policy, because it is considered unfree. This file has been, or will be soon deleted. The file is licensed under a license that does not permit unlimited redistribution, commercial use or the creation of derivative works. Wikimedia Commons is a free media repository, which means that unlimited redistribution, commercial use and the creation of derivative work must be allowed. See Commons:Licensing for more information. If you want to ask permission from the author of the file, please do so using a template from Commons:Email templates. For images, you may find it useful to read Commons:Image casebook.

Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | +/−

Same for:

That's why I had to delete those files.

Please read Commons:Picasa Web Albums files -- Common Good (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


Category:Echinopsis eyriesii[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Echinopsis eyriesii has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

-- Common Good (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Subspecies and variety categories[edit]

I'm not really fond of you creating subspecies and variety categories, I don't think the taxonomy is solid enough to justify it, and it doesn't account for the possibility that individuals observed in the wild are hybrids or intermediates (we only have pictures after all, not DNA sequences). But at least if you do, please check your spelling - you've made a mess of my Opuntia basilaris pictures, some are in nonexistent categories now. Stan Shebs (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Hatiora salicornioides20090416 01.jpg[edit]

Good day. Are you sure that it is not Hatiora salicornioides? The flower of this plant is showing in pictures File:Hatiora salicornioides20081206 01.JPG, File:Hatiora salicornioides20081206 02.JPG, File:Hatiora salicornioides20081206 03.jpg, File:Hatiora salicornioides20081206 06.JPG, File:Hatiora salicornioides20081206 09.JPG. --bff (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reclassification of cactus images[edit]

That's fine with me - in fact it would be helpful to add a note to the description page as well. I do appreciate your work at updating the taxa of these images, the UCBG labels especially seem not to have been updated in many years, and I've been consumed with processing my in-habitat photos lately. (If it would ever help, I have photos of all the labels.) Stan Shebs (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Images by Paul Kaluschke[edit]

His website states: "All photos, are copyright of Paul Kaluschke". We need a permission for use via OTRS to keep his images. -- Common Good (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul Kaluschke has sent permission email to Wiki permission Uleli (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Those 2 deleted images were not mentioned. (That's what User:Captain-tucker told me at User talk:Captain-tucker#otrs:2010032210033336). Please ask your question at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard if there is anything unclear. -- Common Good (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The permission came in a separate mail, the mistake has been solved by Permissions - Wikimedia Commons [Ticket#2010032210033336]. 62.20.63.20 07:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

File tagging File:Echinopsis arachnacantha subsp. torrecillasensis1PAKAL.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Echinopsis arachnacantha subsp. torrecillasensis1PAKAL.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

File tagging File:Echinopsis arachnacantha subsp. torrecillasensis2PAKAL.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Echinopsis arachnacantha subsp. torrecillasensis2PAKAL.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

File tagging File:Echinopsis arachnacantha subsp. densiseta1c.PAKAL.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Echinopsis arachnacantha subsp. densiseta1c.PAKAL.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

-- Common Good (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Rebutia and Aylostera[edit]

Hello Uleli,

it is fine that you take care of the cactus images. But I disagree with the introduction of the ancient genus Aylostera with Category:Aylostera. A single study should not be the base of our classification, we need a system for the entire cactus family (recent books of Anderson or Hunt). Otherwise you have to change your system every time some botanist publishes a paper.

Best regards, --Don Manfredo (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I basically agree that we should use some standard and for Cactaceae, as Hunt & al. (2006). But I belive we have to consider new research when it comes along and ask the botanist currently involved. Last time the family was covered in a, more or less, scientific "encyclopedia" was over 40 years ago in Backeberg's Die Cactaceae (1958-1962) and before that in The Cactaceae (1919-1923) by Britton & Rose (as far as I know). Long time.... Uleli (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hepatica or Anemone? Be consistent.[edit]

Dear Uleli,

Please be consistent.

You have redirected Category:Hepatica transsilvanica to Category:Anemone transsilvanica. Category:Anemone hepatica is currently redirected to Category:Hepatica nobilis. Moreover there are also a Category:Hepatica, which contains pages Hepatica with Hepatica transsilvanica and Hepatica nobilis, as well as Hepatica nobilis and Hepatica transsilvanica.

Best botanical regards, --Réginald (To reply) 08:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

OK so! --Réginald (To reply) 14:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for recategorising my flowers. --Habib.mhenni (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcom! Uleli (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!![edit]

For adding the cats to my images! I read that you are gardening? How are things growing in Sweden? The weather has been so cold here in Switzerland/Germany that nothing really grows in my garden... Amada44 (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. We had a rough winter, the coldest in 50 years, so many tender plants suffered... and then a cold spring which deleyed thwe flowering... but all the sudden it's summer temperatures and most plants are on track again. Uleli (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!![edit]

File:Unidentified Flower TR6.jpg is really like the pictures I've searched in google! Thank you so much Uleli.Taman Renyah (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Uleli (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Cucurbita pepo[edit]

Really Curcubita pepo? Someone told me there are not edible. Best regards, --4028mdk09 (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

  • These can be classified in Cucurbita pepo under different ornamental groups; as Aurantia group and Ornamental gourd group (see Hanelt & al. 2001, Mansfeld's Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural crops). Uleli (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Best regards, --4028mdk09 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't blank pages[edit]

Hi Uleli,

I noticed you blanked Category:Cucumis melo Conomon Group here. Please don't blank pages, wether temporarily or not. Instead use the Preview button to see what a page will look like. See also here for information what to do if you want a page to be deleted. –Krinkletalk 22:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I "paniced" as I couldn't find the editing board.... Uleli (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


Unidentified plants at Huntington Gardens[edit]

Hi Ueli, please categorize identified plants previously in Category:Unidentified plants at Huntington Gardens later as Category:Plants at Huntington Gardens. The location should not be omitted. Thanks. -- Ies (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

    • OK - I will....Uleli (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Uleli!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

File:2010 07 12180 5314 Chenggong Township.JPG[edit]

Hi Uleli,
Thanks a lot for your plant info.
I've added the info to the text and I've put also links to wikispecies, but I've got problems with "Cordyline fruticosa", wikispecies does not have it.
Can you helps with this?
Best wishes --Lord Koxinga (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Paeonia clusii Bot Mag. 162. 9594. 1940.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Paeonia clusii Bot Mag. 162. 9594. 1940.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Trycatch (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Cercis occidentalis[edit]

I think there's a bit of mixup - only var. texensis is changing species. GRIN's list for Cercis [1] still recognizes both C. canadensis and C. occidentalis, while USDA is calling the western one C. orbiculata. Var. texensis is a Texas/Oklahoma plant, not much chance we're going to see any of those way out here in Nevada. :-) Stan Shebs (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions[edit]

Hello Uleli, two little questions:

Greetings. Orchi (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Categorization of my pics of Taiwan[edit]

Hi Uleli, thanks for categorization of my pics.
I've added additional text and links to those.
In the mean time I've tried to categorize some other pics with similar content. You can find all my pics from my trip in 2010 under User:Lord Koxinga/Excursions in Taiwan.
Best wishes --Lord Koxinga (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Crinum humile.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot


File:Crinum augustum Bot. Reg. 2. 679. 1820.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

File:Solanum cheesemanii 1.JPG[edit]

Hi Uleli, I just saw your picture File:Solanum cheesemanii 1.JPG and I doubt it's a Solanum-plant (and furthermore Solanum cheesemanii is now regarded as a synonym of Solanum aviculare). I guess the picture shows a specimen of Jaltomata procumbens, which is found in a few botanical gardens as well. --Carstor (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Veltheimia capensis Les Liliacées.jpg[edit]

Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on Commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the Wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:

  • Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
  • State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly. If it is from another Wikimedia user, link to the person's local user page. Best to use CommonsHelper.
  • If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
  • Add a copyright tag - images without an appropriate license tag will be deleted.
  • Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate categories, so it can be found by others. To find out where an image belongs, you can use CommonsSense.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki. Use CommonsHelper.

It is recommended to use Template:Information to put that information on the description page. Have a look at Template talk:Information for details of the use of this template.

You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more information, follow the Commons:First steps guide. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the Help desk.

Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, please use the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 23:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Osa_pulchra[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Osa_pulchra has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

NVO (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Gokarna.JPG[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

plant vs butterfly[edit]

Hi Uleli,

in this picture, I don't see butterfly File:Virág7.JPG only plant. You put it in a butterfly category. Why? And thank you for identified the plant in the other picture. Excuse my English. DenesFeri (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Please answer! DenesFeri (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Pieris.... just a slip. The plant is named Pieris. Uleli (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Now I understand. The Pieris name is both a plant genus name and a butterfly genus name. I knew only the butterfly genus. DenesFeri (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure if this plant File:1F5.jpg is Phygelius capensis or Fuchsia campos-portoi. Maybe you know. You identified this plant File:Kew6 20101025.jpg. Thanks. DenesFeri (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed a Phygelius (Kew6 20101025.jpg). However, it does not necessary have to be Phygelius capensis as there are some hybrids in cultivation. I'll try to look in to this. Uleli (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you for searching it. and also thanks for this File:136Növény.jpg. DenesFeri (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Misread the first time, File:1F5.jpg is a Fuchsia in the section Quelusia or a hybrid. Where did you take the photo. The most common species in cultivation is Fuchsia magellanica, but hybrids of unknown ancestry are even more common. Uleli (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for your help! I will rewrite them. DenesFeri (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The photos where taken by my sister, somewere in London. DenesFeri (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

rename rights[edit]

Hi Uleli. I have just given you move (or rename) rights. I thought it might be useful for the work you are doing here. Thanks for identifying my Iris pics. cheers, Amada44  talk to me 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Amanda Uleli (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Uleli,
as you seem to take care to supply the pictures you upload with information and to find the correct categories, I'd like to explain how I'm trying to include/structure rose pictures - perhaps that will help you to understand how to find already existing gallerys of rose cultivars when uploading a picture (e.g. Rosa 'Lykkefund' ;-) ).
For rose cultivars, the gallery (named <Rosa 'cultivar name'>) is the first page I create - providing some information about that cultivar (grower, cultivar group, parentage, rose awards). If there are more than 4 or 5 pictures showing that cultivar, a category can be necessary. A link to the cultivar gallery should be provided in the correct alphabetical page (underpage of Rosa cultivars by alphabet) and if possible, the correct grower (e.g. Roses by Meilland), perhaps even the rose cultivar group (e.g. Hybrid Tea).
I hope that was helpful. Best wishes, --Anna reg (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Lilie am 16ter Juni 6557.jpg[edit]

Hello Uleli, thank You for identification. Best wishes --Hedwig Storch (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

File:M_E_Eaton,_Hemerocallis_×_exilis_'Luteola'_(1930).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:M_E_Eaton,_Hemerocallis_×_exilis_'Luteola'_(1930).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

— Cheers, JackLee talk 16:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Rename request[edit]

Hello! May I ask you to provide more evidence for your identification of the plant? As you made several changes to its categorization, placing the image to the categories of different species, I was not sure enough to execute your requested filemove. I'll be happy to do that as soon as you provide more evidence that File:Hemerocallis dumortieri Nikkoukisuge in Bessan 2002-6-16.jpg depicts a Hemerocallis yezoensis instead. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

plants[edit]

Hi,

thank you for the plant identifications! DenesFeri (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Veronica longifolia or Pseudolysimachion longifolium?[edit]

Dear Uleli,

Some clasifications are using the name Veronica longifolia others Pseudolysimachion longifolium. In the past I made the choice for Pseudolysimachion longifolium and redirected Veronica longifolia to it.

Currently there is an ambiguity. Category Pseudolysimachion longifolium is redirecting to category Veronica longifolia, but contains a sub-category Pseudolysimachion longifolium with a lot of pictures. Please clarify this issue.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope it is correct now. I have put Pseudolysimachion back in Veronica' following: Albach, D. C., M. M. Martínez-Ortega, M. A. Fischer & M. W. Chase. A new classification of the Veroniceae. Problems and possible solution [3], and their website [4] Uleli (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
OK. I have moved the 24 files, which were still in the obsolete category:Pseudolysimachion longifolium, to category:Veronica longifolia. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Werauhia[edit]

"Werauhia is a genus formerly part of Vriesea. But all Systematik Works since the last 10 year say this species are in Werauhia not longer in Vriesea. dont do such changes again. Harry E. Luther: An Alphabetical List of Bromeliad Binomials, 2008 in The Marie Selby Botanical Gardens, Sarasota, Florida, USA. Veröffentlicht durch The Bromeliad Society International. --BotBln (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)"

The three "genera" Alcantarea, Werauhia and Vriesea form a monophyletic group. Recognizing the two former genera may be defensible, but not imperative and will make Vriesea (strict sense) paraphyletic. Your two sources are publications of a horticultural society and are not scientific works. Do you have other recent sources? I would prefer following the World Checklist for Wikipedia Commons. Werauhia is not accepted in the World Checklist [5] nor the Plant List [6].
  • Govaerts, R. (2004). World Checklist of Monocotyledons Database in ACCESS: 1-54382. The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew [7].
  • Barfuss, M.H.J., Samuel, R., Till, W. & Stussy, T.F. (2005). Phylogenetic relationships in subfamily Tillandsioideae (Bromeliaceae) based in DNA sequence data from seven placid regions. American journal of botany 92: 337-351.

Uleli (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And Barfuss et al. especially decided that this are 6 genus. in Butcher there are the 3 genus too. and Plant list is a wiki that means nothing. World Checklist is not the list sientist use vor Bromeliaceae but they use Luther. --BotBln (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
look at this: Derek Butcher and Eric Gouda: The New Bromeliad Taxon List A constantly updated list of current Bromeliad names and synonyms. there are a lot of special bromeliaceae info all say its not your way of all in Vriesea but the other with the 3 genus. Gouda is the european Specialist in Bromeliaceae. I am botanist with special interest in Bromeliaceae. so really i know in that family what i do. --BotBln (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Well I have no reason for arguing about this, just explained why I made the change. Please feel free to change back if I can't find the time to do so. Uleli (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Synonyms[edit]

Would you please take a look at this template. Maybe I am using it wrong, but the outcome is not the best, as it does not group the names+authors. Please check Category:Vriesea sanguinolenta and you see what I mean. Uleli (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I've made template:WSSN to refer to synonyms in Wikispecies rather than listing them in commons. As you might know, these lists tend to vary and might be easier in the future to keep Wikispecies up to date. A consensus between Commons and Wikispecies would be preferable Uleli (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

Hello, Rocket000 is in wikibreak but I am like its padawan.
What is wrong with {{SN}} ?
I don't really understand the part about "it does not group the names+authors".
About {{WSSN}}, you should know that is not really liked in commons.
I added many thousand {{wikispecies}} but I see that many contributor suppress or comment them.
I must confess, that I always find strange that wikispecies rarely provides its sources and never its classification (like APGIII in botanic).
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The template work, but strange thing happen when you resize the window. Look at Category:Crinum × amabile.
Wikispecies. There are a lot of work to be done here and some authors are not so serious, not giving good references. I try to use standard floras or databases, or up to date research if possible.
What do people not like about the references to Wikispecies? I think it is a good tool to keep a consensus of the names used. And for synonyms, well they vary with time... easier to make the changes in one place Uleli (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Excellent, the resizing bug! I saw it. It is awful.
I think we will need help on that one.
I can reproduce it on Chrome, firefox but not on InternetExplorer.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I have described the bug in Template_talk:SN. I will find help on this. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Senecio[edit]

Hi Uleli,

My Senecio is not Senecio aureus? It looks like that plant. But I'm not an expert. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the photo? Uleli (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

perhaps olive?[edit]

Hi again,

This are olive fruits and leaves?

File:1 Plant sp. 7 - wetland 2011.08.30.jpg

Or not? DenesFeri (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It is Prunus laurocerasus Uleli (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for the Prunus, but I don't understand your question. What link? I looked at this picture File:Golden Ragwort Senecio aureus Flowers 2616px.jpg and for me it resembled with my own Senecio sp. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That is the link I was requsting, I did't know which photo you talked about. There are many Senecio species and they are hard to identify from a photo. Uleli (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

So, you are not sure if this is File:1 Növény Kew Gardens 9 2009. szeptember.jpg Senecio aureus? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

One more question. Is this really a Leucanthemum sp. File:1 - Leucanthemum sp. 1.jpg? DenesFeri (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You can ask as many questions as you wish. I'm glad if I can help you. This plant is a cultivar of Leucanthemum × superbum, possibly 'Crazy Daisy'. But there are others as 'Bishopstone', 'Phyllis Smith', 'Old Court' and 'Wirral Pride', which are similar. Uleli (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, than. Thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

identification[edit]

Hi Uleli,

Thank you for recognizing so many species! It is very nice! DenesFeri (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Uleli (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm coming here for the same thing. Thank you so much for identifying the plants in my pictures! I really appreciate it. guillom 17:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both. It is good excecice for my botanic mind, thying to recognize them Uleli (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

my user page[edit]

Hi Uleli,

If you want, look at my user page, there are new unidentified plants; perhaps you will recognize some of them. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!! DenesFeri (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, I've tried to identify as many as I can. Uleli (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Doubts about category change of File:Veronica hederifolia.jpg[edit]

Veronica hederifolia.jpg

Hi Uleli/archive,

I find it quite amazing how you can put plants into categories. Most of them seem to be alright as far as I can tell. I have some doubts about File:Veronica hederifolia.jpg, however, that it is really Veronica persica (see the respective file talk page). I believe that the file should be returned to Category:Unidentified Veronica. Best regards --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I went though the species of Veronica recorded for Michigan and came to that conclusion, but I have no problem putting it back in the unidentified category if you doubt the identity Uleli (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! The USDA list for Michigan also contains Veronica polita, which might be more likely than Veronica persica. There are lots of other Veronica species completely unknown to me in the area, however. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks huge![edit]

Thanks for recategorising my flowers. Very good job! :)--Хомелка (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Oxalis[edit]

Hi, you changed Oxalis corniculata to Oxalis texana, then back to Oxalis corniculata and then to Oxalis repens'. Are you sure you know what you are doing? The plant has been identified six years ago as corniculata, so I would not change this unless I really really know what I'm doing. Due to the version history I'm now a little bit doubtful .. -- aka 08:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


I admit I made a mistake with Oxalis texana and I have corrected that. The name Oxalis repens is correct for the purple leaved Oxalis. The appropriate rank for this plant can be debatted, it was first given specific rank by Thunberg in 1781. In 1857 it was described again under the name Oxalis corniculata var. atropurpurea by Planchon. Recently, in 1996, it was given subspecific rank by Tzvelev as Xanthoxalis corniculata subsp. repens and there are some other combinations made in the past. Research vy B.R.Nair and P. Kuriachan (2004) and notes by G.L. Nesom (2009) suggest it is at least partially reproductively isolated from Oxalis corniculata.

I felt it was a good idea to keep this plant separated from O. corniculata (strict sense) to await futher research and I choose the rank of species, until futher research is done and as late as 1984, the rank of species was proposed by Dostál. Separating these images here from O. corniculata avoid future corrections. To publish these images under the name O. repens can never be wrong, just out of date.

  • Nair, B.R. & Kuriachan, P. 2004. Cytogenetic evidence of the evolution of Oxalis corniculata var. atropurpurea Planch. Cytologia 69: 149–153.
  • Nesom, G.L. 2009. Again: taxonomy of yellow-flowered caulescent Oxalis (Oxalidaceae) in eastern North America. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 3(2): 727 – 738.
  • Thunberg, A. 1781. Oxalis 16.

Synonyms

  • Homotypic
    • Oxalis corniculata var. repens (Thunb.) Zucc., Denkschr. Koeingl. Akad. Wiss. München, ser. 2, 1: 230. 1831.
    • Xanthoxalis corniculata subsp. repens (Thunb.) Tzvelev, Fl. Vostochnoĭ Evropy 9: 368. 1996.
    • Xanthoxalis repens (Thunb.) Moldenke, Castanea 9: 42. 1944.
    • Xanthoxalis repens (Thunb.) Dostál, Folia Mus. Rer. Nat. Bohem. Occid., Bot. 21: 9. 1984, comb. superfl.
  • Heterotypic
    • Oxalis atropurpurea Jahand. & Maire, Cat. Pl. Maroc 2: 448. 1932, nom. inval.
    • Oxalis corniculata var. atropurpurea Planch., J. Gén. Hort. 12: 47 (-48; t. 1205). 1857 [1].
    • Oxalis tropaeoloides E.Vilm., Fl. Pleine Terre 584. 1863.

Uleli (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the changes you made, are a strong over-interpretation of these papers. I have got the paper of Nesom 2009: He still keeps var. atropurpurea and var. repens as synonyms of Oxalis corniculata. As I read his comment, it is not clear whether they are populational variants or whether they are at least partially reproductively isolated. The results from Malaysia maybe are not transferable to populations in the rest of the world. So, it is too early make these moves. --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I can see that my arguments have been weak. I just intended the best for Commons. When I noted that this plant was recognized, at various ranks, by so many authors and that the work of Nair & Kuriachan suggested the same I thought it would serve Commons best to separate them. But I put the images back for now on:

The following recognize repens/atropurpurea at various ranks:

  • Correa A., M. D., C. Galdames & M. N. S. Stapf. 2004. Cat. Pl. Vasc. Panamá.
  • Dostál 1984. Folia Mus. Rer. Nat. Bohem. Occid., Bot. 21: 9.
  • Flore Electronique 2000-2009. Association Tela Botanica. Institut de Botanique, Montpellier. Accessed: 2011 Sept 02.
  • Jørgensen, P. M. & S. León-Yánez. (eds.) 1999. Catalogue of the vascular plants of Ecuador. Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 75: i–viii, 1–1181.
  • Moldenke 1944. Folia Mus. Rer. Nat. Bohem. Occid., Bot. 21: 9.
  • Morales, J. F. 2007. Oxalidaceae. In: Manual de Plantas de Costa Rica. Vol. 6. B.E. Hammel, M.H. Grayum, C. Herrera & N. Zamora (eds.). Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 111: 851–858.
  • Tzvelev 1996 Fl. Vostochnoĭ Evropy 9: 368.
  • Zuloaga, F. O. 1997. Catálogo de las plantas vasculares de la Argentina. Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 74(1–2): 1–1331.
  • Zuloaga, F. O., O. Morrone, M. J. Belgrano, C. Marticorena & E. Marchesi. (eds.) 2008. Catálogo de las Plantas Vasculares del Cono Sur (Argentina, Sur de Brasil, Chile, Paraguay y Uruguay). Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 107(1): i–xcvi, 1–983; 107(2): i–xx, 985–2286; 107(3): i–xxi, 2287–3348.

Uleli (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the different color of the leaves is suggestive to recognize these plants as something different. However, as far as I see, usually only varieties are distinguished. How can we be sure that all plants with leaves suffused purplish red are the same? Anyway, we have to follow recent literature. I do not know any recent floristic or taxonomic treatment, where Oxalis repens ist distinguished on species rank. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Well all images are back in O. corniculata and we can await futher publications. I am sorry if I made a mess. I made a bad choice Uleli (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

new plants[edit]

Hi,

I have new plants on my user page. If you want take a look at them, perhaps you may recognize them. Thanks. DenesFeri (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Rhododendron x campylocarpum[edit]

I completed this request. Please use the Nominate for deletion-button in your toolbar.

Furthermore, please prove this claims. If they are true, we/you can just move this page. Thank you -- RE rillke questions? 13:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Stellaria sp.[edit]

Hi Uleli,

I think that this plant File:Caryophyllales - Stellaria sp. 3 - 2011.06.05.jpg belongs to the Stellaria genus, but I don't know its species, perhaps you may know. There are other pictures with this plant on my user page, and there are also new plants to be identified. If you want. Thanks! DenesFeri (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It might be a Stellaria nemorum, but the species of this genus is very hard to tell apart and it might be impossible from a photo. Uleli (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, Thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The shape of the leaves and the flowers look like Stellaria nemorum. DenesFeri (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. Could you create new categories? DenesFeri (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, which category do you need? Uleli (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Postia stiptica, Vriesea amethystina, Eucalyptus dalrympleana, Capito niger and Cotinga maynana. DenesFeri (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Done Uleli (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! DenesFeri (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

identification[edit]

Hi,

Thank you for the identifications! DenesFeri (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ilex aquifolium[edit]

Hi Uleli,

This two pictures show Ilex aquifolium?

File:1 Plant sp. - Kew 24.jpg and File:1 Plant sp. - Kew 30.jpg

Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This is probably Ilex aquifolium. There are several variegated cultivars and I can't say which one this might be. Another possibility is a cultivar of Ilex × meserveae, but these look different to my eye... but I am no expert on this. Uleli (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

The first plant is Ilex aquifolium, and the second one is perhaps Hedera algeriensis.

I wonder if this stem File:1 Plant sp. - Kew 41.jpg is Coffea sp. also, because it came right after the Coffea leaves? DenesFeri (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Please make this category, Dioon caputoi. DenesFeri (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Uleli (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! DenesFeri (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

A new category is needed, Hibiscus arnottianus subsp. punaluuensis. Please DenesFeri (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

And this too Hibiscus fragilis please. DenesFeri (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have made the category for Hibiscus fragilis. However, is it not custom to make categories in Commons for subspecies or any other rank below species (varietas, formas etc.). Images of Hibiscus arnottianus subsp. punaluuensis are to be put in the category of Hibiscus arnottianus and you state the subspecies in the description of the image. Uleli (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for the identification :) Léna (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Antirrhinum majus 6636.JPG[edit]

Hello Uleli, thank You for correction. SundayGreeting --Hedwig Storch (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

File:1 Növény Kew Gardens 8 2009. szeptember.jpg[edit]

Hi,

This could be a Banksia sp.? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Or, rather this Category:Veronica 'Sapphire'? DenesFeri (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not a Banksia, it is a Veronica, of the subgenus Hebe. I can't tell mote specific. Uleli (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you!

Another question:

This roots belongs to a Taxodium distichum tree File:1 Mangrove sp. Kew 2.jpg, I'm 90 procent sure. This roots are from the same place File:1 Mangrove sp. Kew 1.jpg. Could they be also Taxodium distichum? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 07:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the roots of that species can look like this. But only you can decide if the roots of the second photo is from the same tree. Uleli (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks! DenesFeri (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

new category[edit]

Hi Uleli,

Please make this category for me, Tulipa viridiflora. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Tulipa viridiflora is not accepted as distinct from Tulipa gesneriana. Are you sure you have photos of the original "T. viridiflora" from 1887 or merely hybrids of the tulip division 8: Viridiflora? Uleli (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know. On the package was written Tulipa viridiflora and I simply accepted it; but I'm sure you know better. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Now is ok? File:Liliales - Tulipa viridiflora 1 - 2011.05.11.jpg? DenesFeri (talk) 10:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes this is probably beter categories for your plant. Uleli (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Nicotiana alata[edit]

Hi, what is the reason for the name change? The plant was raised from seeds which were named as the original file. regards, --Holger Casselmann (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

'Dwarf White Bedder' is a cultivar from of Nicotiana × sanderae and not of Nicotiana alata. All dwarf cultivars of "Nicotiana alata", regardless of color, can be refered to this hybrid, but is is not unusual that they are called "alata" in the trade. The true Nicotiana alata is a tall plant. I belive 'Dwarf White Bedder' is introduced by the seed company Thompson and Morgan.
ref: Thompson & Morgan Uleli (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Uleli!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Coprinellus domesticus[edit]

Hi Uleli,

Please make this category Coprinellus domesticus. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Done! Uleli (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Unidentified plant 10.jpg[edit]

Good day, you may be able to help with identification?--Хомелка (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Euphorbia cyparissias in fall coloring Uleli (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Flowers[edit]

Musée de l'école de Nancy flower 3.jpg Identification Banstar
Thanks for all the identifications of flowers :) Léna (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Uleli (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

template:fohy[edit]

Hello Uleli, I saw your very good template "fohy" in Wikispecies and later I saw the same template in Commons. The form is for me not important. My question to the software expert Liné1: Is it possible to create this template in that way, that it is usable for galleries and categories with the same "template:fohy" (like the template:tysp). I hope it will be o.k for you. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is ok, though I don't like the "label" appearance of neither tysp or fohy... plain text woud be better on both, but that is a matter of taste. I think the pages looks messy with all different add-like labels. The fohy info does not need a stop-sign in my view. Why not just a simple line around as in the other parts of the "page heads": See Anemone nemorosa. One box for each part; vernacular names, taxobox, wikispecies, synonyms etc. Uleli (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Derwentia[edit]

Hello Category:Derwentia r u sure about this redirect ? ThePlantList.org:

Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have followed:
  • Martínez Ortega, M.M., Albach, D.C. & Fischer, M.A. 2004. Taxon 53(2): 438.
  • Martínez Ortega, M.M. & Albach, D.C. 2011. Classification of Veroniceae [8].
  • GRIN

See Wikispecies Uleli (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thx --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Classification/Reclassifcation of pics on [9], User:Lord Koxinga/Excursions in Taiwan[edit]

Hi Uleli,
I'm busy with my pics at wikimedia again. I saw that you you've categorized a lot again, thanks :-)
Up to now I went through until Thumb.
Some of the pics I've recategorized just trying my best with searching on the German an English page and wikispecies too. And I've added links to en, de and wikispecies.
But, as I'm really not a specialist, some might be wrong. I'm quite sure that you have them on your watchlist. Just check them once (we have time). I don't need any annotation from you, because I have them on my watchlist too (and on my Excel-sheet where I organize all).
Thanks a lot for your cooperation and Merry X-Mas and A Happy New Year -- Lord Koxinga (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Merry X-mas too Uleli (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

some new categories needed[edit]

Hi Uleli,

Please create the following categories: Urticina felina, Pristis pristis, Amphibolurus muricatus, Amphisbaena fuliginosa, Pelusios gabonensis, Phrynosoma orbiculare, Bougainvillia muscus, Scolopendra viridicornis, Gastrotheca griswoldi and Thenea muricata. Best regards. DenesFeri (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, but you might check the authority citations as I don't realy know how to cite in zoology. Uleli (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither I, thats why I ask you to make them. But don't worry, I will ask Amada44 to check them, to check the authority citations. Thank you! Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Unidentified Cyperaceae[edit]

Hello Uleli
I need help. Are you able to identify #2 (File:Cyperaceae spp Sturm9.jpg)? ThePlantList.org tells that:[10]
  • Cyperus capitatus Vand., syn. Cyperus mucronatus (L.) Mabille
  • Cyperus laevigatus subsp. distachyos (All.) Ball, syn. Cyperus mucronatus Rottb.
  • Cyperus laevigatus L., syn. Cyperus mucronatus L.
  • Pycreus flavidus (Retz.) T.Koyama, syn. Cyperus mucronatus Steud.
  • FloraWeb.de lists Schoenoplectus mucronatus (L.) Palla,[11] the others seem to be quite absent in France & Germany.[12]
Can you help? Thx. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, this is far from my field and I can't identify the plant in the plate. However, the name Cyperus mucronatus has also been used for Cyperus laevigatus L. (Pycreus laevigatus (L.) Nees, Juncellus laevigatus (L.) C.B.Clarke), as Cyperus mucronatus Rottb., 1773, nom. illeg., if this might be a clue. Uleli (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Thx, this book is a challenge ;[ If it interest you, than you can see how I'm coping with it here: Regal:Biologie#Bestimmungsbücher --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

christmas[edit]

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! DenesFeri (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

And the same to you :-) Uleli (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong category for File:Bildtankstelle 1 093.jpg[edit]

Hi Uleli/archive, you moved the image File:Bildtankstelle 1 093.jpg to Category:Lampranthus. This is obviously wrong. Judging from the description of the image ("Bottlebrush") this is probably something from the genus Calistemon or from the genus Beaufortia (see en:Bottlebrush). I know neither of these, but judging from the images on the web, Callistemon looks much more like this plant than Beaufortia. Unfortunately en:Callistemon points out that some species from New Caledonia are now considered Melaleuca species. So we might place the image into Category:Unidentified Callistemon or Category:Unidentified Myrtaceae or just revert your edit and leave it in Category:Unidentified plants. Best regards --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing my mistake, my mind must have slipped. Uleli (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
O.k., so I undid your edit and returned the image to Category:Unidentified plants. If you know more about these plants, you might change the category as suggested above. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
It is a species of Callistemon, probably Callistemon citrinus. The name in Swedish is lampborstbuske which I accidently made to "Lampranthus". Sleeping is a good thing :-). Again thank you for letting me know Uleli (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong ID?[edit]

I wonder why you considered the identification of this and this flowers questionable. The pictures were taken in a botanical garden (Jardin des Plantes, Paris), where all species are identified. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The plant in the photo is definitly not Coreopsis grandiflora, it must have been mislabeled in the botanical garden. It happens often when a visitor remove the label and then misplace it. Compare with [13]. Leaf shape and the shape of the ligulate flowers (those that looks like petals) Uleli (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
It might be Heliopsis helianthoides Uleli (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, Uleli. I'll try to go through the photos I took in the Jardin des Plantes and clarify the issue. Yes, even the botanists make mistakes... Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Change category[edit]

Hello Uleli,
I saw you change the category of one of my picture. Could you add a comment to explain why you think there is an error. You have to know that I did not identify this specimen, but there was a green tag from a local botanist. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I is much clearer. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Flora Batava[edit]

Hello. Category:Uncategorized Flora Batava images is being built up, contributions would be welcome. Thank you very much. Regards ;o) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Uleli, could you please comment on Category talk:Flora Batava, Netherlands#Oxalis stricta: a disputable category, we don't know what to do with the Category:Oxalis fontana and Category:Oxalis stricta. Thx, cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Uleli, thank you for indentifying my flowers ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
My pleasure Uleli (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Easter[edit]

I wish you Happy Easter! DenesFeri (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The same to you !!! Uleli (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Botany Barnstar[edit]

MOSBarnstar.png I hereby award you this barnstar for your taxonomic work on Wikipedia. It is much appreciated. Jdsteakley (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


I am deeply moved, this is an honour! Uleli (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Camellia cultivars vs Rhododendron simsii[edit]

Hi Uleli,

Congratulations for your botany barnstar!

Please look at this two pictures. I think I give them a wrong name. Perhaps they are Rhododendron simsii and not Camellia cultivars. What is your opinion? File:Ericales - Camellia cultivars - kew 1.jpg and File:Ericales - Camellia cultivars - kew 4.jpg Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.... both your photos are of an unknown Rhododendron cultivar.... not R. simsii. It is virtually impossibly to say which cultivar, as there are so many of them. Most large red cultivars are complex hybrids involing R. arboreum. Uleli (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks too! DenesFeri (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Augustusburg Sachsen am Schwarzen Teich 6 aug 2007.jpg[edit]

Hello Uleli, thank You for ident. Many Greetings --Hedwig Storch (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Uleli (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Rename of Ghislain's files[edit]

Dear Ueli,

Thank you for renaming some misidentified files of Ghislain's galleries (4 pics Ghislain called Gentiana burseri (Pyrenees) [misidentification] --> Gentiana lutea (Pyrenees) [correct identification]).
When I identified and classified Ghislain's pictures I was not yet a Filemover.

Since I am now a Filemover, I am can rename misnamed files.
I have in the meantime reviewed the plants of the Flora Batava and, when classifying them, I have renamed some misspelled names or misidentified pictures.

Perhaps I should now begin to systematically review Ghislain's galleries (more than 3,000 pictures!), looking for still misnamed files and rename them properly.

Best regards from Belgium, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Symphytum tuberosum?[edit]

Hi Uleli,

Could this File:1 Plant sp. - Kew 82.jpg be Symphytum tuberosum? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

    • I'm not sure, S. bulbosum or S. tuberosum? Uleli (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"Lysimachia arvensis"?[edit]

Hi Uleli - what's your justification for this move? It looks decidedly premature to me, e.g. "Previous suggestions that Anagallis and Trientalis could be ingroups of Lysimachia were not corroborated by our results". I'd suggest that Anagallis arvensis be returned to its traditional status until disputes over its phylogeny become more clearly resolved. - MPF (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

    • I have followed Manns & Anderberg (2009), but I have no objection to your suggestion. I did't see major disputes when I checked though. Uleli (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Manns, U. & Anderberg, A.A. 2009. New combinations and names in Lysimachia (Myrsinaceae) for species of Anagallis, Pelletiera and Trientalis. Willdenowia 39: 49-54 [14].
Thanks! Looking at the paper, the key is in their opinion "Merging all the genera in Lysimachia is here considered better than splitting the latter into several smaller genera"; I'd presume the paper I cited would take the opposite view, and I suspect in the long term, that opposing opinion is the one more likely to gain favour as Manns & Anderberg's broad interpretation leaves Lysimachia huge and rather unwieldy. There'll be other species pages here that are hard to deal with for the moment, but Anagallis arvensis is easy as it is the type species of a Linnaean genus so remains the same even if Anagallis is split into 2 or more genera (as Manns' earlier [2007] paper in Willdenowia suggests Anagallis too is paraphyletic).
Will you make the necessary changes? Uleli (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Yep, tho' probably not till tomorrow! - MPF (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thx!

Copyright status: File:Clematis lanuginosa 2.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Clematis lanuginosa 2.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

JuTa 01:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Clematis patens.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 05:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Passiflora[edit]

Could you check this change please [15]. Thanks. Orchi (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

In deed, the plant in the image is Passiflora pittieri, the change is correct. Uleli (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Orchi (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Clematis[edit]

Hi Uleli,

Thank you for identifying the Clematis sp.! Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cultivar[edit]

I asked a real expert to solve the upgrade of the Template:Cultivar. I think, Liné1 had produced a good result. Perhaps you check it. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello
I did the modifications you asked. I also:
  • improved the doc
  • improved parameter parentX for which you don't need to provide the syntax for the link, but the link is automatically provided.
I have some questions:
  • When the year is not provided, would'nt you prefer to display "(year ?)" or "(year unknown)"
  • When parents are not provided, would'nt you prefer to display "Parentage: Unknown"
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Vitis 'Kerner Bijeli'[edit]

Hello Uleli,

how did you come up with the name Kerner Bijeli? AFAIK, this grape veriety is simply called Kerner, nothing more. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 17:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I have corrected the error. I get the cultivar names from Vitis International Variety Catalogue (VIVC), supplemented by National Grape Registry (NGR). Uleli (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
OK and thanks. I have deleted the misnamed category. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 18:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you.Uleli (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

new category 2[edit]

Hi Uleli,

Please I need a new category for this picture File:Malvales - Hibiscus aff. genevii - kew 1.jpg. Would you make it? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi - I would put it in Category:Unidentified Hibiscus, but try to get information from Kew about htis specimen so the name can be corrected in the future. Uleli (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will see what can I do. Thanks. DenesFeri (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Funchal Botanical garden IMG 1791.JPG[edit]

Hello Uleli, I thank you for identification. Greetings --Hedwig Storch (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Uleli (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Anemopsis californica.jpg[edit]

Thank you for solving the puzzle of this plant's identification! There was a large field of flourishing plants and I had never seen them before. Appreciate it. Downtowngal (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad to be of help Uleli (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Information, thank you.[edit]

Hi.

Where do you get the information that says that Lilium candidum is a synonym to Lilium regale? You ordered this move: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Lilium_regale_-_20100702.jpg&action=history

The Plant List says not!

Thanks C T Johansson (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Lilium candidum and Lilium regale is not the same species, but the flower in the image can not possibly be L. candidum. Lilium candidum has a pure white flower without yellow throat nor pinkish outside. Your flower match Lilium regale.
Uleli (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. The plant must have a fault label in Berlin botanischen garten. I hope they will change their label. Thank you for the correction :) 83.233.121.79 07:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Narzisse 3833.JPG[edit]

Hello Uleli, I thank you for identification. Many greetings --Hedwig Storch (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

{{Cultivar}}[edit]

I wonder if you might have another look on this template. There are some cases when the template does not work perfectly. It is when the cultivar is not the product of a hybrid/crossing. Sports are mutations from one parent and there are also species cultivars which are merely collections from the wild. Could the template be arranged to cover these too? Or is it better to make a similar template for these types of cultivars? See: Category:Tulipa 'Beauty of Apeldoorn' where this should be no "parentage" or at least no "× ?". Best wishes Uleli (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

  1. What about the |spot= solution ? As I did not know about sport, I provided internationalized links.
  2. I also added a surrounding box like {{VN}} and {{SN}}. Do you like it?
  3. I could also add other optional parameter like: |tradenames=
Liné1 (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
You are realy gifted! Thank you. Yes, if possible add some additional parameters as trade name(s) which should be in Small Caps and without the single quote marks. And one optional for synonyms.
I would like to change the word "descripion" in Cultivar description, as a description in botany and hortiulture usually refers to "how they look" not the cultivar data. Why not just "Cultivar:"?
I was even able to link the sport name (see Category:Tulipa 'Beauty of Apeldoorn').
I do like the box too? Maybe you can fix the box in Template:WikispeciesCompact too. The box is short and makes not too nice line breaks, see Category:Narcissus sect. Tazettae. It would be more consistent if it had the same length as the other boxes.
Again, thank you for your job Uleli (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  1. I added |tradenames=
    • with Small caps as you said. Is that what you wanted ?
    • I specified in the doc that it should be the trade names in the original country and that {{VN}} should be used for other languages.
  2. I did not add anything about synonyms because {{SN}} is meant for that.
  3. I suppressed "description" from the title
  4. About the {{WikispeciesCompact}}: personnaly, I don't like it. I prefer {{wikispecies}} which is on the right: Varanus for example.
Cheers 19:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Well thank you again! I've changed template:WSSN so it will go on the left side as you prefer. It is a taste thing, personally I don't like when Wikis looks like an advertising page... but I'm only one. You made the cultivar-template excellent! By the way, trade names has nothing to do with vernacular names. It's a marketing thing. Tradenames can me protecteed market names.
ex: The rose cultivar 'Poulrohill' has the tradename Lill Lindfors™ in Sweden, the tradename Egeskov© Castle is used in Denmark and Enduring Spirit™ for other countries. Sometimes a tradenamne is used on an old cultivar to bring it up on the market again.
It is only a way of protecting markets and choosing the best name for every country you're trying to sell plants in. But in the end, these market names are often used by garderners so it is good with a tradename line in the template. The cultivar name can only be one, and it is global Uleli (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot[edit]

Thanks a lot four your identification of the "File:Magnolia Détail FR 2009.jpg". Good work ! Regards from France. JLPC (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Crinum overreach[edit]

While I think it's useful to note that an identification is doubtful, I point out that I was careful to follow UCBG's labelling, and given that they're a serious botanical garden, I think you would need either personal observation of the specimens, or agreement from UCBG folks that their specimens were mislabelled before overriding their judgement. Even worse, you've altered my text while leaving it attributed to me alone, which makes it looks as though I'm disparaging the abilities and competence of the professionals in charge of UCBG. Effectively it's the same as editing someone's talk page to make it sounds like they're saying something the opposite of what was intended. So I'm going to be reverting some of these changes to be more careful about who is saying what, to clarify that your identification is only on your own authority, and I'll thank you not to misrepresent my work in the future. Stan Shebs (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Christmas[edit]

A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! DenesFeri (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

2013[edit]

Hi,

Thank you! You had a good time on Teneriffe, right? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Selenicereus[edit]

Hello Uleli, are you sure about this. The tag in the botanic garden stated that it is actually a Selenicereus grandiflorus, but I cannot really judge it. Best regards, Poco a poco (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am quite sure, but is alway's a possibility that the plant is a hybrid. Selenicereus grandiflorus is quite rare in cultivation, but the name is almost mythic so most Selenicereus are given that name... even in botanical gardens. S. grandiflorus was the first species to be grown in Europe, but most plants was lost. Possibly because these plants came from the West Indies and was more tender than later introductions of other species from Mexico, like S. coniflorus and S. pteranthus.
True S. grandiflorus has rather slender, many ribbed stems, usually 6-8. The flowers has often more or less brownish hairs of the flower tube. S. coniflorus has thicker stems with 4-5 ribs and always white hairs of the flower tube. S. coniflorus is similar to S. pteranthus in all charactes except that the spines are long. S. pteranthus has very short spines.
Compare:

Uleli (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The type specimen of Selenicereus grandiflorus does not show the stems charactes, but has brownish flower hairs. Type specimen of S. grandiflorus. Another element that Linneaus refered to in his original descrition was this plate of Volckamer: [16]. Uleli (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Enough! :) Convinced, I moved the file and updated the description. It is actually good news, because it is the first picture of that species in Commons. Thanks a lot! Poco a poco (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't help myself :-) Uleli (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Renaming images of Echinopsis[edit]

You can rename them, I appreciate the correct identification and the correct naming of the files. --Llez (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Gladiolus ringens var. cinereo odorato.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 18:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Parodia and synonymes[edit]

Hallo Uleli,
these days I give taxonavigation, links and interwiki links to all Cactaceae species on commons, and I noticed that you made new categories for Ritterocactus, Bolivicactus, Notocactus and other synonymes of Parodia. Plant images should be categorized in only one species category (for example: not in Category:Ritterocactus mammulosus and additionally in Category:Parodia mammulosa). Please use Template:Synonym taxon category redirect for the synonym categories, then all future uploads will be gathered in the one right category. (I am interested, which really are the accepted names for these species? All wikipedias and databases still use Parodia). Greetings from --Thiotrix (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I might have been a little premature on this, but followed Doweld on Parodia and added the extra categories for these alternative names.... which might be followed in time. But I agree with you to allow only one category and redirect the others... I'll do that in time... or do you have the time to help? Uleli (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Doweld, A.B. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships within Notocactus-Parodia puzzle. Sukkulenty (Moscow) 3(1-2) 44-64 [17].
If you agree, I could help you. Do you prefer redirecting Doweld's names to the Parodia species, as all wikipedias still use Parodia? Or to redirect from Parodia to the new Doweld's names? --Thiotrix (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, please use Parodia as standard. In time we'll see if Dowels reseach was accepted. Uleli (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Botany Barnstar 2.png The Botany Barnstar
Thank you for all your botany related work!!! Amada44  talk to me 20:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh thank you!!!! :-)

Easter[edit]

Hi,

I wish you Happy Easter! Cheers! DenesFeri (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you and the same to you. I am down with the flue, so not so happy. But better days will come Uleli (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! And I wish you fast recovery! Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Chaenomeles japonica[edit]

Hi,

Are you sure that my Chaenomeles japonica is not Chaenomeles japonica? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cultivar[edit]

I wonder if you, again, could help me with this template? I am afraid to touch the code as I probably would mess things up. Today there are two options: "Formula hybridae" and "Sport of". I wish to add a third... "Selection of", working in the same way as the "sport-option". Could you spare the time? I would be grateful Uleli (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course, with pleasure. I will prepare a proposition. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello my friend.
I added a parameter selectionof=
Could you try it in some article/category ?
Then tell me were you tested it + what display you want instead of "Selection of".
As usual, The translation of "Selection of" is stored in {{Taxolang}}
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It is working perfectly, thank you. I appreciate your help - Category:Chaenomeles speciosa 'Moerloosei'. Uleli (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)